| 1 |
On 08/11/2017 07:08, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Howdy, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I ran up on this link. Is there any truth to it and should any of us |
| 5 |
> Gentooers be worried about it? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/07/linux_usb_security_bugs/ |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Isn't Linux supposed to be more secure than this?? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I would say the real problem is USB itself. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What is USB after all? It's a way of sticking any old random thing into |
| 16 |
a socket and getting the computer to magically do stuff. So if the |
| 17 |
system software then goes ahead and does stuff, it's only really |
| 18 |
operating as designed and as spec'ed right? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yes, those 40 holes are probably all true and quite possibly all |
| 21 |
exploitable, and they should also be fixed. But the real problem is that |
| 22 |
USB even exists at all. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
btw, when you say "Isn't Linux supposed to be more secure than this??" |
| 25 |
the answer is a resounding NO |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The Linux=safe, Windows=notsafe delusion comes from the 90s when Windows |
| 28 |
had no real security features at all, or even any realistic ways to |
| 29 |
limit and control access. Linux had a Unix-style userland and kernel, so |
| 30 |
you automatically got multi-user/multi-process with per-user |
| 31 |
permissions. That alone, by itself, is probably the largest single |
| 32 |
security advance in all of computing history. Everything else is icing. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
There is nothing in Unix really that is "secure by design", and all von |
| 35 |
Neumann machines are actually insecure by design |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 40 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives